.

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Yeah Brian we are all merely the products of our environment.

Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head.

They should have played it more gently apprehending these fugitives? Keep chasing these two convicted murderers that have escaped from prison until one cop can get a clean rugby tackle followed by a dog pile and a gentle handcuffing with a stern verbal reprimand?

This was hardly a game of hide and seek, Callen.

Your Projecting Thirty.

Observation and interesting no conversation on this by the media. As stated earlier rules of engagement altered. Shoot on sight. Interesting and worthy of conversation on the train.

Was my point in this 'conversation' not obvious?

What were you insinuating when you felt the need to point out the cops shot these guys? Keep me from projecting here and spit it out. What are you really trying to say when you assert: "Appears standard rule of engagement were adjusted for these guys. Shot whole running away. Other guy 3 shots to the head"?

Thirty, this was not an assertion. Standard rules of engagement do not allow for 'shoot on sight'. Obviously 'shoot on sight' mentality affords greater effectiveness than a tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand. A tackle, handcuffing, and verbal reprimand being unfounded are all much less harmful (and more reversible) than, say, a shot to the head. These rules of engagement exist so that those who are falsely tried, or those who are being prosecuted with potential bias, are not subject to such irreversible methods of attaining obedience.

To argue that standard rules of engagement offer ineffective results is one thing, but in that case, it's actually you who's beating around the bush here, and not Callen.

EDIT: I have to apologize for writing something I wasn't sure about enough, and that's how standard rules of engagement are altered (in still standard ways) in such a situation as an escaped criminal who is proven to possess harm to a community. If this is a standard alteration, consider everything that I wrote above to be a moot point.

I have read this, Benj.

I'm responding because I feel I should in the interest of maintaining good relations. You've offered an apology and I don't think one was necessary (I realize the apology was a broad based one and not directly to me).

Thanks Thirty, but sharing something like this without validating facts first is something I do feel is demanding of an apology. And for what it's worth, I never want to sour a good relation here, so I hope I didn't come close to doing so with you!